It is an intriguing question, to which we may never have a
complete
answer: How did we get from animal vocalization (barks,
howls,
calls...)
to human language?

Animals often make use of signs, which point to what they
represent,
but they donít use symbols, which are arbitrary and
conventional.
Examples of signs include sniffles as a sign of an on-coming cold,
clouds
as a sign of rain, or a scent as a sign of territory.
Symbols
include
things like the words we use. Dog, Hund, chien, cane,
perro
-- these are symbols that refer to the creature so named, yet each
one
contains nothing in it that in anyway indicates that creature.

In addition, language is a system of symbols, with
several
levels
of organization, at least phonetics (the sounds), syntax (the
grammar),
and semantics (the meanings).

So when did language begin? At the very beginnings of the
genus
Homo, perhaps 4 or 5 million years ago? Before that? Or with
the advent of
modern
man, Cro-magnon, some 125,000 years ago? Did the neanderthal
speak? We donít know.

There are many theories about the origins of language. Many
of
these have traditional amusing names (invented by Max MŁller and
George Romanes a century ago), and I will create a couple more
where
needed.

1. The mama theory. Language began with the easiest
syllables
attached to the most significant objects.

2. The ta-ta theory. Sir Richard Paget,
influenced
by Darwin, believed that body movement preceded language.
Language
began as an unconscious vocal imitation of these movements -- like
the
way a childís mouth will move when they use scissors, or my tongue
sticks
out when I try to play the guitar. This evolved into the
popular
idea that language may have derived from gestures.

3. The bow-wow theory. Language began as
imitations
of natural sounds -- moo, choo-choo, crash, clang, buzz, bang,
meow...
This is more technically refered to as onomatopoeia or echoism.

4. The pooh-pooh theory. Language began with
interjections,
instinctive emotive cries such as oh! for surprise and ouch! for
pain.

5. The ding-dong theory. Some people,
including
the
famous linguist Max Muller, have pointed out that there is a
rather
mysterious
correspondence between sounds and meanings. Small, sharp,
high
things
tend to have words with high front vowels in many languages, while
big,
round, low things tend to have round back vowels! Compare
itsy
bitsy
teeny weeny with moon, for example. This is often referred
to as
sound symbolism.

6. The yo-he-ho theory. Language began as
rhythmic
chants, perhaps ultimately from the grunts of heavy work
(heave-ho!).
The linguist A. S. Diamond suggests that these were perhaps calls
for
assistance
or cooperation accompanied by appropriate gestures. This may
relate
yo-he-ho to the ding-dong theory, as in such words as cut, break,
crush,
strike...

7. The sing-song theory. Danish linguist
Jesperson
suggested that language comes out of play, laughter, cooing,
courtship,
emotional mutterings and the like. He even suggests that,
contrary
to other theories, perhaps some of our first words were actually
long
and
musical, rather than the short grunts many assume we started with.

8. The hey you! theory. A linguist by the
name
of
Revesz suggested that we have always needed interpersonal contact,
and
that language began as sounds to signal both identity (here I am!)
and
belonging (Iím with you!). We may also cry out in fear,
anger, or
hurt (help me!). This is more commonly called the contact
theory.

9. The hocus pocus theory. My own
contribution
to these is the idea that language
may have had some roots in a sort of magical or religious aspect
of our
ancestors' lives. Perhaps we began by calling out to game
animals
with magical sounds, which became their names.

10. The eureka! theory. And finally, perhaps
language
was consciously invented. Perhaps some ancestor had the idea
of
assigning
arbitrary sounds to mean certain things. Clearly, once the
idea
was
had, it would catch on like wild-fire!

Another issue is how often language came into being (or was
invented).
Perhaps it was invented once, by our earliest ancestors -- perhaps
the
first who had whatever genetic and physiological properties needed
to
make
complex sounds and organize them into strings. This is
called monogenesis.
Or perhaps it was invented many times -- polygenesis -- by
many
people.

We can try to reconstruct earlier forms of language, but we can
only
go so far before cycles of change obliterate any possibility of
reconstruction.
Many say we can only go back perhaps 10,000 years before the trail
goes
cold. So perhaps we will simply never know.

Perhaps the biggest debate among linguists and others interested
in
the origins of language is whether we can account for language
using
only the basic mechanisms of learning, or if we need to postulate
some
special built-in language-readiness. The learning-only
people
(for example, B. F. Skinner) say that childhood conditioning, or
maybe
modeling, can account for the complexity of language. The
language-acquisition-device (LAD)
people (such as Chomsky and Pinker) say that the ease and speed
with
which children learn language requires something more.

The debate is real only for those people who prefer to take one
or
the other of these extreme views. It seems very clear to
most
that neither is the answer. Is there some special neural
mechanism for language? Not in the sense of a LAD.

In most mammals, both hemispheres looked very much alike.
Somewhere
in humanity's early years, a few people possibly inherited a
mutation
that left one hemisphere with a limited capacity. Instead of
neural connections going in every direction, they tended to be
organized
more linearly. The left hemisphere couldn't related to things in the
usual full-blown multidimensional way. But -- surprise! --
that
same diminished capacity proved to be very good are ordering things
linearly. And that's exactly what language needs: The
ability to convert fully dimensional events into linear sequences of
sounds, and vice versa.